Ted Hoffman

GDon,
You are the one that stated that archons meant Pilate. Its ok if you have shifted your position now.
Are you admitting that archon (the ruler of this world), in AoI, is used in a spiritual sense? I mean, he does take human form and descend from the firmament to spread lawlessness on earth.
Do we agree on this?
The interpretation of majority of scholars. Plus Origen. Plus Marcion. Plus Clement of Alexandria. Plus me. Plus Doherty.
Asclepius was son of a God and mortal woman. He lived as a demigod, healed many and raised people from death. We was killed by Zeus for blasphemy (raising the dead) but was resurrected and made immortal. From heaven, he would appear to his believers on earth. Paul may not have borrowed from this, but its the same kind of thing. We don't claim that Jesus was a Xerox copy: just that in a form-critical sense, they can be grouped as ideal types.

As Price says, "Ideal types, as Bryan Wilson observes, are not Procrustean boxes into which phenomena must fit or be forced to fit. Rather they are yardsticks distilled from common features, yardsticks employed in turn to measure and make sense of the features the phenomena do not have in common. The differences are just as important as the similarities, which is why it is needful to study the various phenomena (in this case, ancient miracle-workers and inspired sages) each in its own right. Each is unique, but what they have in common with the other recognizable members of the same class will help us understand where they differ and why. Thus it is not helpful in studying the gospels to cross "Divine Men" off the list for gospel study either because the proposed members of the class are not all alike (as Jack Dean Kingsbury wants to do in The Christology of Mark's Gospel) or because there are also other elements besides that of the Divine Man in the gospels. Theodore J. Weeden (Mark: Traditions in Conflict) shows how Mark both presupposes and critiques the Christology of Jesus as a theios aner."

And before you launch to apples and oranges, Price adds: "...genres evolve precisely by means of "transgression" of genre conventions. What we are seeing in the Christian rewriting of Septuagint stories as Jesus stories is something like a mutant strain of what was happening over in the cousin religion of Rabbinic Judaism. An apple is not an orange. Neither is a tangerine, but it is helpful to compare a tangerine to an orange if you are trying to describe a tangerine. More helpful than comparing it to an apple or to saying it is like nothing else." here
Most saviours and gods are.
What about the opinion of the majority of scholars?

I await your substantiation of this claim.
An influence is not a demon. A demon is a being. Paul never seems aware of the existence of the Gospels. What makes you think he believed this anti-semitic propaganda from the gospels? You are really making huge leaps here.
Yes, but we know that history is not prophecy/vision. A Xstian would want to believe that anything he believes as historical was prophecized. So, when we find HJ details in a vision like Isaiah's, we know the redactor is engaging in prophecy-fulfilment.
Early positions: Didache (50-120), 1 Clement (80-140), Epistle of Barnabas (80-120), Shepherd of Hermas (100-160), Odes of Solomon (150): They all lack a HJ and are either using "the son" (an intermediary saviour figure), "Christ" as an ever-present force, not someone that died in the past, or divine wisdom (Christ Logos) - similar to Jewish Personified wisdom we find in Sirach. (I have relied on Kirby's site http://www.earlychristianwritings.com for the dates). And remember, not even one gospel can be dated securely within the first century.
We evidently read him differently then.
Argument from personal incredulity? Read Doherty's Review of Crossan's Birth of Christianity (the review itself is a book) and of Robert Funk's Honest to Jesus to grasp the problems with Crossan's Twin Traditions and Funk's Reverse Christology.

Kirby,
I don't know where the phrase "non-christian writings" came from. That one appeals to platonic philosophy and worldview does not preclude that one is a Christian. My God.

Origen, De Principiis, Book III

Chapter 3
Chapter 2
"Princes of this world" is used interchangeably with "rulers of this world".

Origen, De Principiis, Book III

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V
Clement: "Plato, again, in the seventh book of the Republic, has called "the day here nocturnal," as I suppose, on account of "the world-rulers of this darkness; " and the descent of the soul into the body, sleep and death, similarly with Heraclitus"
Clement writes "the Son sees the goodness of the Father, God the Saviour works, being called the first principle of all things, which was imaged forth from the invisible God first, and before the ages, and which fashioned all things which came into being after itself. Nay more, the oracles exhibits the prophecy which by the Word cries and preaches, and the judgment that is to come; since it is the same Word which prophesies, and judges, and discriminates all things. "

Clement: "In reasoning, it is possible to divine respecting God, if one attempt without any of the senses, by reason, to reach what is individual; and do not quit the sphere of existences, till, rising up to the things which transcend it, he apprehends by the intellect itself that which is good, moving in the very confines of the world of thought, according to Plato."

Clement: "Accordingly, Plato says in the Epinomis, "I do not say that it is possible for all to be blessed and happy; only a few. Whilst we live, I pronounce this to be the case. But there is a good hope that after death I shall attain all." To the same effect is what we find in Moses: "No man shall see My face, and live."
Clement: "Plato also thought it not lawful for 'the impure to touch the pure.' "
Clement: "Rightly then, Plato, in the Epistles, treating of God, says: "We must speak in enigmas that should the tablet come by any mischance on its leaves either by sea or land, he who reads may remain ignorant.""
The Stromata or Miscellanies Book V

On Neo/Middle Platonism

Origen was Clement's student of secular and scriptural literature between 185-202. It is during this time that he familiarized himself with Plato's works and appreciated figurative or allegorical interpretation, as employed in the Greek mysteries, and applied it to the Jewish writings. Clement, his teacher, is more unabashed in his application of Plato's thoughts on Jewish Scriptures and early Christian beliefs regarding the nature of Jesus, cosmogony and divine wisdom as I have indicated above.

Plato's work Timaeus , in which he explained the origin or creation of the visible world, greatly influenced early Christian apologists and thinkers like Clement and Origen. The platonic worldview and method of interpretation subsequently influenced how these two interpreted the 1 Corinthians 2:8 passage above regarding the nature of the "rulers of this world". Ignatius and Marcion (a gnostic of docetic flavour - whose concept of demuigre was also Platonic in origin) shared the same interpretation, against Tertullian.

Like Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria), Justin Martyr and Tatian were also influenced by (Middle) Platonism. And Platonic thought and interpretation is evident in their writings. As we learn from A. Hilary. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1947), 903, here, they believed that Platonism was the "best available instrument for understanding and defending the teachings of Scripture and Church tradition… like Philo, they did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance wit the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."

Now, I don't know how and why Kirby seeked[sic] and never found. But Clement of Alexandria and Origen, are considered, without question, to have embraced a platonic worldview and employed platonic thought systems in their exegeses. And 'princes/rulers of this world' does appear in their writings, in fact, they even quote Paul.

Note to the readers: compare Clements "spheres" like "sphere of existence", "sphere of knowledge" etc with Paul's "sphere of the flesh" (kata sarka). Elegant .

Amaleq13

GDon,

Given the above description, would you consider Asclepius historical or mythical?

Peter Kirby

Piffle. I didn't say such a thing.

What is your problem? I stated clearly in this thread that "rulers of this age" is found only in Christian writers (83 times in the TLG), with Clement of Alexandria being the first after First Corinthians, which they all knew.

Also, you are wrong on the Epistle of Barnabas; its author accepted a Jesus on earth.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Kirby,
You are right. Barnabas doesn't belong to that catena. The point I should have made was that Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Barnabas and Ignatius of Antioch are among the first Christian 'fathers' who were completely unaware of the gospels, and of the passion as we find in the gospels. Their utter ignorance of the story of Jesus on earth, as portrayed in the gospels, and their slavish reliance to the OT severally, is confounding assuming that Jesus actually walked the earth as portrayed in the gospels.

This phenomena further reinforces the idea that the PN and Jesus' biographical details were a later creation that was unavailable to the early Christians.

I think I mistakenly conflated your position with Rick's:
This statement assumes that there is no platonic thought/expression in Christian writings. Which is an erroneous assumption.

Theodore

Rick Sumner

It does no such thing. It assumes that you meant what you said.

You suggested it was to be found in neo-Platonic writings over and against the Christian writings already mentioned by Peter. If you made a mistake, you made a mistake, it's not going to be less of a mistake the more you try and cloud the discussion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon

Mythical.

Amaleq13

Why?

Specifically, why doesn't the claim that Asclepius "lived as a demigod, healed many and raised people from death" suggest to you that he was believed to be a historical figure?

GakuseiDon

While what you quoted sounds like myth, there is nothing there to suggest that he wasn't a historical figure. From here:
The ancient Greeks believed him to be a historical figure. Perhaps the myths were based on an actual person, which I think is the most natural explanation, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Amaleq13

Why is that "the most natural explanation"? When I read it, I came to the exact opposite conclusion (ie an originally mythical figure later obtained seemingly historical details).

The opinion you have recently expressed seems more consistent with your consideration of the evidence relevant to Jesus than your initial response.

It seems to me that your argument with Doherty's thesis is more about where the Incarnation took place than it is about whether Jesus was originally a mythical figure. I tend to somewhat agree with you in that I think that Doherty's argument for locating the sacrifice in some Platonic heavenly realm needs more support than he currently provides. I think that was a point Carrier made as well in his review. On the other hand, even if I assume that Paul believed Christ incarnated on earth, I still see nothing in his letters that denies an ultimately mythical status similar to what appears to be true of Asclepius. Where and, more importantly, when this incarnation took place is never specified. The only thing that has clearly taken place in the recent past is the appearance of a resurrected Christ.

Is it reasonable to assume that Paul completely avoids locating the execution of Christ in the recent past because of his "authority issues" with the Jerusalem Group?

GakuseiDon

"Most natural" because something had to have kicked off the belief in the person's existence. In the absence of other evidence, the assumption that there was a historical person sitting at the core of the myth is the most natural one. Of course, Christ Mythers would say that they have other evidence, which is fair enough.

Are there any mythological figures located in the last 3000 years who were regarded as real at some stage who we know for a fact were never historical? Moses, perhaps?

Yes, I agree with you here.

No, it isn't... I can't see why that should stop him at least mentioning the place of Christ's execution.

It's puzzling. I think that if Paul truly believed that Jesus had commissioned him to preach to the Gentiles, and he disagreed with TJG over Mosaic Law, that Paul would have quoted Jesus to provide support for his mission to the Gentiles. That Paul doesn't quote Jesus on this is unusual. Something else must be at work. I just find it hard to believe that the only teaching Paul had from Jesus (outside the Lord's Supper) had to do with divorce, as important a topic that may have been at the time, regardless of whether Christ was historical or mythical.